6 ms·
There must have been so much unseen behavior when there were millions more whales in the ocean. Here's hoping that we can see more
by grahar64 5mo ago
There must have been so much unseen behavior when there were millions more whales in the ocean. Here's hoping that we can see more
- sidewndr46 5mo agoGiven the current trajectory of whale populations, 'we' probably won't be seeing that. Maybe in many generations of humans.
- cortesoft 5mo agoWell, the population growth probably isn't linear, so maybe?
- mulnz 5mo agoWarming will kill off most of the systems these animals depend on within 30 years.
- ilt 5mo agoAnd will give way to many which thrive or evolve to thrive in hotter climates?
- ygjb 5mo agoIt's gonna take a minute (on a geological timescale) for the ecosystems to be able to reliably sustain megafauna again.
- gameman144 5mo agoGiven that we support megafauna today, could you explain why? Legitimately asking, since I don't see a reason they couldn't adapt just as well.
- gdupont 5mo agoBecause evolution is slow and the climate change is going fast.
- timschmidt 5mo agoEvolution of small things like algae and the krill which feed on it and feed the whale is quite fast. Single celled organisms reproduce on the scale of 20 minutes and hold immense amounts of genetic diversity in their populations to facilitate the success of a better adapted line almost immediately. Additionally, they are adept at horizontal gene transfer from other well-adapted organisms.
- kulahan 5mo agoThis would be great news if the whale literally only required krill to survive, but complex megafauna have complex needs, so the ability of krill and other small creatures to evolve is largely irrelevant in a discussion regarding the ability of megafauna to survive. This is especially true if you read TFA and see that the whales already adapt to eat different things as necessary.
- timschmidt 5mo agoHumpbacks have a highly specialized feeding mechanism. They only prey on krill and small fish. The food chain really is sun -> algae -> krill (and sometimes small fish) -> humpback whale
- jounker 5mo agoIn recent years we’ve learned that humpbacks are generalist feeders with a wide variety of feeding strategies adapted to different kinds of prey.
- timschmidt 5mo agoHumpbacks will switch between Krill (their staple in many regions) and small schooling fish (herring, sand lance, anchovies, etc.). But they don’t eat large fish, squid regularly, or anything like seals - so they’re not “generalists” in the broad, anything-goes sense. They’re still constrained by their baleen filter-feeding system, which limits them to tiny prey
- wahnfrieden 5mo agoIt’s game over for a very long time
- napierzaza 5mo ago[dead]
- thrance 5mo agoSure, in a few million years.
- netcan 5mo agoIn human time scales, the species which thrive will tend to be the adaptive generalists. Evolution takes time.
- dredmorbius 5mo agoAnd: on the 'r' side of the r/K reproductive strategy. Whales are literally the exemplar of K-selection, that is a very small number of high-quality offspring. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory> Whale lifespans are long, populations and fecundity / brood sizes are small, sexual maturity relatively late, and childhood mortality relatively high. All of these make for slower rather than more rapid evolution. Species such as krill (on which many whales feed) are far more likely to evolve rapidly in the face of increasing selection pressures. Whales might well find themselves boxed into an inescapable evolutionary corner.
- gilrain 5mo agoNot at the pace of change we’ve chosen to accept, no.
- vasco 5mo agoWhy put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.
- cultofmetatron 5mo agocod fishing boats used to have to be wary of the catch being so big that it would tip the boat. We have no real frame of reference for what we've already lost.
- vasco 5mo agoOf course we do, you just gave an example. In fact if we truly didn't, then there would be no problem.
- snaking0776 5mo agoI think their point is that discounting the time estimates is more a constant shifting of the window of what we expect more than them being de-facto incorrect. They’re more off by degree (e.g. an XX% reduction vs complete extinction) than being worthless. As the example points out a large reduction can be very similar to an annihilation it’s just that we are only used to what we know so we constantly shift what is normal.
- tclancy 5mo agoYou have sailed past the point. There were so, so many cod it was hard not to catch a bunch. That isn’t a metric, it’s an indicator that most likely meant vast unseen numbers. The tip of the iceberg is a metaphor for a reason, though it may become an anachronism within our lifetimes.
- vasco 5mo agoThe argument is that we didn't notice, not that it's a predictor or whatever. And we noticed, so the argument is not good.
- vedmed 5mo ago[flagged]
- lowken10 5mo ago[dead]
- booleandilemma 5mo ago[flagged]
- voakbasda 5mo agoBecause they think it might make people give a shit enough to do something to change that outcome? Fear is a strong motivator, but it is not a good one in this case. To really be effective, there must be the threat of direct, immediate, and severe consequences. Instead it causes people to treat their messages as hyperbolic and undermines their entire movement.
- SecretDreams 5mo ago> What I'm wondering is why is there such a push for this stuff? Why does someone want everyone to think life as we know it is ending? Simple thought exercise (it's a 2x2): What are the consequences of climate change being consequential vs inconsequential? What are the consequences of us doing too little or too much to mitigate climate change? Which quadrants are most consequential for the future of our planet?
- SecretDreams 5mo agotl;dr is there's very poor ROI to do nothing to improve our polluting habits and banking on the world sorting itself out. Furthermore, most actions we can take to improve climate outcomes can also improve societal and technological outcomes. The only downside to taking more actions to have clean energy and less pollution are based on made up economic rules that normal people are supposed to follow, but that the super rich/powerful skirt at their leisure. A cleaner future benefits the VAST majority, irrespective of climate change. And the bonus is that if climate change does progress, we're better suited to manage it. Or we can keep burning liquified dinosaur bones and partying like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get the appeal of the 60s for how care free people could be - they lived without consequence. And we're stuck dealing with their failed policies.
- kjkjadksj 5mo agoImagine you killed off all of humanity save for a couple people in Muncie, IN. How long until the next Shakespeare or Einstein emerges? Better yet, a properly heterogeneous culture?